MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404918923 · doi:10.2196/65446

Harnessing Human-Centered Design for Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions and Implementation Strategies in Community Settings: Protocol for Redesign to Improve Usability, Engagement, and Appropriateness

2024· article· en· W4404918923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aaron R. Lyon, Sean A. Munson, Michael D. Pullmann, Brittany Mosser, Tricia Aung, John C. Fortney, Alex R. Dopp, Katie Osterhage, Helen Ghirmai Haile, Kathryn E. Bruzios, Brittany E. Blanchard, Ryan Allred, Macey Schallert, Patrick J. Raue, Ian M. Bennett, Jill Locke, Karen Bearss, Denise D. Walker, Elizabeth H. Connors, Eric J. Bruns, Jenna van Draanen, Doyanne Darnell, Patricia A. Areán

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsUsabilityPreprintPsychological interventionProtocol (science)PsychosocialPsychologyApplied psychologyCommunity engagementMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineNursingWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionAlternative medicinePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although substantial progress has been made in establishing evidence-based psychosocial clinical interventions and implementation strategies for mental health, translating research into practice-particularly in more accessible, community settings-has been slow. OBJECTIVE: This protocol outlines the renewal of the National Institute of Mental Health-funded University of Washington Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center, which draws from human-centered design (HCD) and implementation science to improve clinical interventions and implementation strategies. The Center's second round of funding (2023-2028) focuses on using the Discover, Design and Build, and Test (DDBT) framework to address 3 priority clinical intervention and implementation strategy mechanisms (ie, usability, engagement, and appropriateness), which we identified as challenges to implementation and scalability during the first iteration of the center. Local redesign teams work collaboratively and share decision-making to carry out DDBT. METHODS: All 4 core studies received institutional review board approval by June 2024, and each pilot project will pursue institutional review board approval when awarded. We will provide research infrastructure to 1 large effectiveness study and 3 exploratory pilot studies as part of the center grant. At least 4 additional small pilot studies will be solicited and funded by the center. All studies will explore the use of DDBT for clinical interventions and implementation strategies to identify modification targets to improve usability, engagement, and appropriateness in accessible nonspecialty settings (Discover phase); develop redesign solutions with local teams to address modification targets (Design and Build phase); and determine if redesign improves usability, engagement, and appropriateness (Test phase), as well as implementation outcomes. Center staff will collaborate with local redesign teams to develop and test clinical interventions and implementation strategies for community settings. We will collaborate with teams to use methods and centerwide measures that facilitate cross-project analysis of the effects of DDBT-driven redesign on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: As of January 2025, three of the 4 core studies are underway. We will generate additional evidence on the robustness of DDBT and whether combining HCD and implementation science is an asset for improving clinical interventions and implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: During the first round of the center, we established that DDBT is a useful approach to systematically identify and address chronic challenges of implementing clinical interventions and implementation strategies. In this subsequent grant, we expect to increase evidence of DDBT's impact on clinical interventions and implementation strategies by expanding a list of common challenges that could benefit from modification, a list of exemplary solutions to address these challenges, and guidance on using the DDBT framework. These resources will contribute to broader discourse on how to enhance implementation of clinical interventions and implementation strategies that integrate HCD and implementation science. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/65446.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.014

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.915
GPT teacher head0.798
Teacher spread0.118 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207